User talk:Filll/Archive 7

science as religion sub-section of the creation/evolution controversy article

Filll, I re-added some of the stuff you removed. I just wanted to let you know in case you strenuously object. My reasoning is on the discussion page, where I invite you to revert if you think I am wrong. I won't go into the reasons here, but I did want to point you to the revert and disucssion as to my rationale. I hope you don't take offense. StudyAndBeWise 03:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the + tab when starting a new conversation on talk pages. Thanks.

As you may know, when you add new sections to talk pages like you did to create Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Autobiographical content, it would help if you used the + tab rather than simply editing the last conversation. When I saw you posted in Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Commercial links, I thought you were replying to me. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abus Gun

Dear Filll, I mean no disrespect to you, but I was wondering what you meant when you stated that my article Abus Gun was hard to read. I do not find this myself, and no-one has commented on it other than you. I believe I DID state alot about the weapon. I talked about when it was used (napoleonic era), how it preceded more common and more recognisable forms of artillery (you said the article stated that it was the first), the versatility of the weapon, even the weight of its projectiles. And about the put down about the game, Age of Empires is famed for it's historical background to its campaigns in-game, and it's history section is known to be accurate. (have you even played the game?) I was just wonderingabout these things, and was hoping you could explain yourself further. Yours truly, Anonymous Dissident

Need your help

Please see Talk:Religious perspectives on dinosaurs#Kinds=Species. The user named RossNixon is trying to prove his Creationist stuff. HELP. Orangemarlin 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. {{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoldenMeadows&diff=101711758&oldid=88895387}} Orangemarlin 08:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Bees and toxic chemicals provides great coverage of this fascinating (though strange) subject. Hence, I award you this barnstar, for all of your hard work. Please, keep it up :) Mart inp23 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - you deserve it :). Also, I nominated the page to appear on the "Did you know" section of the main page, and it has already been accepted! It should be going on the main page within the next hour - again, well done. Mart inp23 00:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah! Just seen that it's been moved back (for being too new) to the requests page - hopefully it'll go on some time in the next few days. Mart inp23 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wight

You should really ask User:(aeropagitica) about that deletion - it seems like a bad call. The first speedy tagging wasn't out of line, although it was a bit premature; the article consisted of only: Thomas Wight (?-1608) was a bookseller and a draper in London. It lacked context, although Wildthing61476 (talk · contribs) should have used {{prod}} if anything (since the article was tagged only 10 minutes after it was created). The final version (Thomas Wight (?-1608) was a bookseller and a draper in London. Together with his father, the draper John Wight, he published seven editions of William Bourne's book, A Regiment for the Sea. Bourne's book was the first purely English navigational text. Edmund Weaver, a famous London book publisher and bookseller, started as Wight's apprentice.) should never have been speedy deleted. But people make mistakes. I see no reason why the article shouldn't be acceptable. Guettarda 22:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Wildthing61476's defense, there was a nonsense article of the same name deleted only a few weeks before you started yours. Guettarda 22:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is notable. Unfortunately, there is now a very narrow course to be steered between WP:PEACOCK and deletions for stubs. It would probably be ok in its current state, but you could pimp him up a bit in the first sentence - leading, important, even notable, & a bit more puff. It helps if there are already links to him also. Also a picture if poss. Johnbod 23:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1., the way to prevent a speedy delete is to get there and put a hangon tag and an explanation, and then put some stuff in fast, and then tell me or someone, and I can take off the tag altogether. The author cant, but anyone else can if they give a reason. I usually say, "if you still wan tt delete, send for AfD," and make the deletor do the work. Half the time they bother, and half they don't. I try to watch for any scholar or historical figure, but I must have missed this one--it goes too fast.

2. I just did another revision with some links--look for it. The article is about Wright, and his professional activities as a publisher. It is not about the books he published. That quote comes from Pulbeck, and all Wright did was print it. Strictly speaking , the details of the books are not relevant to wright, but since you got he full titles in, leave them. However, that he printed english or other authors whose works had already been printed by someone else is irrelevant entirely, unless what he did was a notable edition in some way. If he was the first printer to print the work, or the first to print the work in english, that is notable. I would add a sentence about his influence in legal publishing... I have put in a link from Yearbook. Check to see if any of the other guys or their books have articles, & if so link to them and from them In any case, include their first names or at least initials from the bibliography. Link from forest law. etc. But he doesnt get credit for what the people he published deserve the credit. It will hold. I'll be checking tonight. Send me a note when you put the article in, and I'll keep speedy visible. DGG 23:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was deleted despite a {{hangon}} Guettarda 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

Hoping this comic will brighten up your day a little. :) Congrats on the excellent bee article! I think we'll be ready to unveil Objections to evolution soon, since there are only a few sections left to fill out; again, feel free to make any changes or additions whatsoever to that page. -Silence 06:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Bees and toxic chemicals, was selected for DYK!

On January 22, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bees and toxic chemicals, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid 64 22:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The force is strong... but bear with it ok

Fill, in regards to Singapore Changi Airport's cluterring lead section, I wish you persevere a little bit more. Many of us have fed up trying to fight against many of those who are for cluttering the lead. Many of us have given up trying to fight over User:Huaiwei, User:Vsion, and User:Wangi. I hope you can be the new force who can win over them. I am with you. I believe the first sentence of the article should be as uncluttered as possible per WP:LEAD. --Zack2007 00:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other wiki

I'm glad you supported my tack. I believe this is where the Star trek and star wars people went. And good luck to them! Fred 05:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that encouraged me to stay was to discover the win/win solution of star trek fans, who had found possible connections to their universe in a great many 'standard' articles, forming Memory Alpha. Things like the Wookieepedia followed, which fans joined willingly to avoid edit wars with unenlightened editors. On a personal note, I think you can discern a lot about the difference between these star people by their choice of name. 'Memory Alpha' is a super-computer/repository containing the sum of human knowledge in an episode of the same name. The star wars one is a pun-groan.

Dianetics

OK, I was reading up on this cult, when I realized, at the end of the article, the Creationists are quite tame. This article, which is filled with Pseudoscience, pseudomedicine, and pseudointelligence, is actually the worst thing I've ever read on here. Well, except when I first came to Wikipedia, some idiot had rewritten the Holocaust article denying it--I had no clue about reverts and things like that, and I thought Wikipedia was a place I'd never see again. Anyways, this article violates so many principles that it's obnoxious. 03:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It is very difficult to keep crazy stuff out of a publicly edited source like WP. There really are not enough of us to protect articles from attack, and write new articles as well. Of course, if you think about what the public really believes as revealed in surveys (such as some of the surveys I quote in Support for evolution), then it makes sense. People who do not believe in superstitions etc are often outnumbered by those who do.--Filll 12:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Article Launch

Thanks to all the contributors and assistance, I have now put Bees and toxic chemicals on the MAIN part of WP. I am open to a name change, however, if someone can think of a better one. I just realized that there is also the article Pesticide toxicity to bees which exists, and has a slightly different and more narrow focus. The article Pesticide toxicity to bees is primarily a compiled list of substances that are toxic to bees.--Filll 16:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bees do a waggle dance to tell other bees where and how far food is. Do pesticides and alcohol influence there ability to communicate? DGG stated that human and bee brains are not comparable. There are not similar in gross anatomy but functionally they are organized similarly and there is plenty of evidence of parallel evolution. His statement would preclude using Aplysia to study memory or insects to study neurobiological phenomena. I started my Ph.D. in neurobiology before I changed focus and the first paper I published was in olfaction and neuroanatomy of crawfish and lobsters. This invertebrate model is useful in studying vertebrate olfaction and neuroanatomical substrates. Here is part of an abstract from a 1999 paper by Sandeman: "Advances over the past three decades in our understanding of nervous systems are impressive and come from a multifaceted approach to the study of both vertebrate and invertebrate animals. An almost unexpected by-product of the parallel investigation of vertebrate and invertebrate nervous systems that is explored in this article is the emergent view of an intricate web of evolutionary homology and convergence exhibited in the structure and function of the nervous systems of these two large, paraphyletic groups of animals."

Here is an interesting abstract in alcohol sensitity:"Neuropeptides usually exert a long-lived modulatory effect on the small-molecule neurotransmitters with which they colocalize via regulation of the response times of second messenger systems. Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) functions as a neuromodulator and neurotransmitter and regulates a variety of physiological processes. PACAP is structurally highly conserved during evolution, implying its vital importance. In Drosophila, loss-of-function mutations in a PACAP-like neuropeptide gene, amnesiac (amn), affect both memory retention and ethanol sensitivity. The amnesiac gene is expressed in neurons innervating the mushroom body lobes, the olfactory associative learning center. Conditional genetic ablation of neurotransmitter release from these neurons mimics the amnesiac memory phenotypes, suggesting an acute role for amnesiac in memory. However, genetic rescue experiments also suggest developmental defects in amnesiac mutants, implying a role in neuronal development. There is a parallel between memory formation in Drosophila and mammals. PACAP-specific (PAC(1)) receptor-deficient mice show a deficit in hippocampus-dependent associative learning and mossy fiber long-term potentiation (LTP). Meanwhile, PACAP-deficient mice display a high early mortality rate and additional CNS phenotypes including behavioral and psychological phenotypes (e.g., hyperlocomotion, intense novelty-seeking behavior, and explosive jumping). A functional comparison between PACAP and amnesiac underlines phylogenetically conserved functions across phyla and may provide insights into the possible mechanisms of action and evolution of this neuropeptidergic system."1: Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002 Sep 27;297(3):427-31. Higher brain functions of PACAP and a homologous Drosophila memory gene amnesiac: insights from knockouts and mutants.Hashimoto H, Shintani N, Baba A. Hope this helps.GetAgrippa 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for those. This is exactly what makes this so fascinating, and why I was enthralled with the subject, much to several other editor's obvious disgust. What is sort of surprising and really unexpected is that bees (and fruit flies) seem to have so much in common with humans in their interactions with alcohol. If I just came here from another planet, I would never expect creatures that are so different as Humans and Bees to have similar behaviors and experiences with alcohol. It is very surprising to me that they are affected by alcohol; after all, as I note in the article, lots of other things toxic to humans do not affect them at all. And the studies about antabuse and bees? Absolutely amazing. It was also fascinating to me to read about how ingenious the researchers were to study these effects. Bees in a running wheel? Fruit flies in an "inebriometer"? (a hollow tube with a wire mesh at the end; the alcohol vapors were passed up the tube to the fruit flies balancing on the wires. As they become more drunk, they would start to wobble and lose their balance while trying to hold on to the metal wires of the mesh, and eventually fall down the tube.) Amazing. I was also astounded at how bees have developed social mechanisms to prevent bees which enjoy alcohol too much from disrupting the hive. Incredible. So much like humans. And the studies of genetics and "hangovers" with fruit flies just are amazing. Producing genetically engineered fruit flies that can be more or less tolerant to alcohol intake? I suspect these experiments will be repeated with bees as well from what I read. This is a huge and exciting area, as we start to understand what alcohol and other toxins do to the brain. (I am a lifelong teetotaller myself so I am only interested in an academic sense.)--Filll 18:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! I agree. Termites have domesticated and farm fungus, so we see parallels in all aspects of life. Animal behavior and neuroethology are fascinating disciplines and you are right in how ingenious scientist are in design and strategy. I wish I had been a teetotaller. In my youth I had a difficult time with substance abuse. GetAgrippa 19:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A fascinating bit of trivia I read once is that about 1/3 Americans is a teetotaller. I do not know if these are previous substance abusers that are on the wagon. or religious people, or people who cannot drink because it interferes with their medication (a lot of that out there now). I did read something I found strange but I did not put it in the article. Apparently there are some plants that are not the source of toxic honey, but are the source of toxic honeydew. I am not sure if any humans ever eat honeydew or how they would find out, but I thought it was interesting.--Filll 19:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fill I just read the entire article. You write very well and a fascinating subject. I agree with your new Barnstar-Wow! I wish I was so talented in communicating! I am a fast paced rambler-full of information but unable to get my message across. I enjoyed the historic events associated with toxic honey. I remember reading an article that surmised that the Oracle of Delphi sat on a geologic vent such that hallucinating levels of hydrogen sulfide were responsible for the visions. Congratulations! GetAgrippa 19:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I appreciate it. I am glad others found it as interesting as I do. It might be a strange topic, but it was a decided hole here on WP. And it is one that actually has an immense economic impact from bee mortalities due to poisoning. Without bees, many of our commercial crops would not exist.--Filll 20:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True declines in American bees in such that producers raise bees to pollinate their crops. GetAgrippa 20:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool article on a weird subject, nice job Filll! I don't know anything in particular about the subject, so I can't really comment intelligently on that, but from a writing perspective, why explicitly define intoxication? I think we all know what that means ;) Opabinia regalis 06:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question. It was requested, is the short answer. And I try to satisfy my reading public.--Filll 13:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

Now that's what I call an answer! Do you mind if I blatantly cut and paste the next time the same question is asked on one of these pages (i.e. in about 2 days)? Cheers, yandman 09:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick, hide the evidence!

I thought you might get a kick out of this. I saw it mentioned on the PT site. Enjoy! Mr Christopher 21:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that is great. I slipped it in a place or two.--Filll 22:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help

Happy to help out as much as I can... BTW I saw the world view quiz on your page and others. Neat. Yet another cool section for my user page. Thanks for the idea... Katalaveno^T_C 19:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done mulling?

Respond? --ScienceApologist 04:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I want to consult some others. And everyone seems to have been offline for a few days.--Filll 04:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another candidate to consider

I have scratched out John Cotta and Richard Bernard as drafts. Any comments? Will they get hit with a speedy?--Filll 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lochmaben Stone

Thanks for the comment. I have made it a bit clearer hopefully. Regarding 'funny' vandalsim - someone decided to change Mr.Spratt to Mr.Pratt in one article I was writing.

Rosser1954

Cotta

Separate the notes and references. The Oxford DNB is a key source, and it has an article in WP., so use it as much as possible, and have it prominently listed in the refs. cite not just by article number, but also art. on " ", by a. B. Each article has a named author. Artice on " " is not redundant, because many articles also have paragraphs on other people. Since you have it available on line, experiment with its indexing.

You seem to have the taste for odd info like the name of the river, and I think its nonsense, even if it was in a local history journal. When I see something like this, I want to do something drastic to the article & others may have the same reaction. If you do include something like this, do it as a direct quotation from the source & it'll hold up better. Just curious, but what is the rationale for your selection of topics?DGG 04:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wondered about the name of the River, but the author of the article quoted is a faculty member at a college. It still might be nonsense, but I thought it was sort of interesting (although admittedly tangential at best; this "factoid" could safely be removed for sure). I guess I like the offbeat historical tidbit. Regular history with the standard recitation of facts bores me to tears, but the unusual, and the wacky I definitely like. I think it spices history up a bit (of course one has to be careful about verifiability). As to topic selection in general, I have my main thrust in creationism, and in some scientific topics (since I am a scientist), and then a few things that interest me. For example, some of the bee stories I had heard in a documentary and I was charmed so I thought I might write an article about them. Other topics, like Frere Jacques, one of my earliest efforts (and the article shows it), are because I wanted to see how much I could dig up on the topic. I contacted the Library of Congress. I corresponded with the Bibliotecque Nationale in Paris (in French). I searched the document files of the B.N. as well. I contacted about 5 other reference librarians. I contacted the Vatican library. I contacted the Russian Orthodox monks. I contacted the Jacobin monastery in Paris. I phoned some of the other editors to discuss it. I wrote to some of the web sites that are in the references (and received answers too !). I translated documents from Polish. I tracked down the retired Columbia professor who had written a review article in Russian and interviewed him about his references. Frere Jacques is a simple song, but one that appears all over the world in many guises. And no one knows what it means, but there are plenty of theories. And it has plenty of translations, and I think we have the largest collection of different translations anywhere on planet earth. I visited about 5 language forums for help with other versions in other languages. And more is to come. It gives me a certain perverse pleasure to analyze such a simple melody to death. Then some things just are red links and I become curious. So on St.Pierre and Miquelon, which I contributed to since I think it is interesting to have a piece of France inside Canada's boundary waters, I had some red links in the history of explorers. And when I filled in those red links, I had other articles with more red links. And I followed along to get Weaver. And then Weaver published a number of authors. So I wanted to change those red links to articles, and I came across Cotta. Recently I saw someone complaining about race and intelligence. So I went to look, and it had some red links, like the maze test for IQ. So I looked into it, and it lead me to people like Alfred L. Elwyn and the history of institutions for the mentally disabled in the US. So my article choice is really from filling in red links that I am curious about, in most cases. Otherwise, it is about something that I find interesting (like the fact that although the Masaai test as lactose intolerant, they do not show the symptoms and consume a lot of milk). So I contributed a bit at lactose intolerant, and expanded the list of statistics there so it could be a valuable resource for anyone who wanted to learn about global patterns of lactose intolerance (which has lots of consequences for evolution). What was interesting there was the anomalies that show up in the data, aside from the Masaai. If I were a biochemist, I would really look more closely at lactose intolerance because from a scientist's perspective, it definitely seems like we do not understand it very well yet. I might work more on genetic distance because I think it is a fascinating subject that I want to know more about, and I think a very poor job has been done on this in science so far (this is close to my area of expertise, so this would not be for WP but for my own OR). I am trying to understand your other advice, which is always good and definitely appreciated:

Separate the notes and references.

Either I do not understand this comment, and/or I do not know how to do it. I am just a scientist, not really an expert on many more scholarly things. --Filll 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford DNB is a key source, and it has an article in WP., so use it as much as possible, and have it prominently listed in the refs.

It is not prominent? Hmm. I guess I am not sure what to do. I could link to it I guess if it has its own article. You think its dates are more reliable than a publication?--Filll 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cite not just by article number, but also art. on " ", by a. B.

Wow that just went over my head. I feel pretty stupid.--Filll 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Each article has a named author.

Right. Did I do something wrong? I am missing something here.--Filll 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article on " " is not redundant, because many articles also have paragraphs on other people. Since you have it available on line, experiment with its indexing.

Again, I am lost. I know my references are awful and ugly. I have not learned referencing here yet. I know the style I learned from my own publications. But every Journal uses its own style, so eventually I just gave up. I should use the WP style, but I sometimes think that when I have an urge to write, I should just bang out a rough draft, and then fix it later. Maybe that is a bad attitude.--Filll 05:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all of my articles, I like a bit of interesting tension. Cotta is a famous debunker of mountebanks, charlatans, quacks and fakes, but he still believes firmly in witchcraft. In this he has something in common with Reginald Scot; they publish how to spot fakes, but they still believe in magic spells and demons etc. It is interesting. I liked the fact that bees can get drunk and even fruit flies; amazing ! And the fact that bees even guard the hive against drunk bees. And I have always been fascinated with the idea of poisonous honey. So it seemed like an interesting challenge to push those both into the same article, which I managed to pull off. And I ran across a few references to toxic natural substances. Then of course everyone knows about the environmental crisis with manmade chemicals, so I threw that in too (briefly). I am interested in history from a sort of trivia viewpoint, like the explosion of William the Conqueror's body after he died. Or the occupation of parts of North America by the Axis powers in WWII. Or the existence of Angle Inlet, MN. Or Konigsberg, Russia. And I am interested in extremes, like the world's largest thurible, or the hot springs with the biggest flow worldwide. So I went to see what I could find. Or hotsprings in obscure places, like Antarctica and Spitzbergen and Greenland and on top of a mountain in Tibet. And then the confusion about how many hot springs England has, and where. This naturally lead to the question, what makes a hot spring a hot spring anyway? Then that lead to an investigation of bacteria and viruses and other creatures that live in hot springs and even fish adapted for life in hot springs in Australia. I also like seeing how much I can find on a teeny tiny town in some obscure place. It is like a challenge; can I find enough to make an article? I do not know if that makes it clear what I am up to. I am not an organized scholar with some scholarly agenda. I am more of a dilettante, with a wide variety of interests. I still have big themes I work on, but the excursions into whimsical articles and other flights of fancy are what make Wikipedia fun for me, since I am a trivia addict and an information gourmand.--Filll 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References- You learn this sort of thing by following examples-- Its fine to copy an example and substitute the appropriate text for the one you are using. The relevant p. is WP:CITE. the footnote style is the one used for science articles; others can be either footnote or Harvard--look at the specific pages just follow the instructions, You can copy the sample templates. It is perfectly OK to write and then fill in the refs. All you really need is book and journal.

the DNB online. First thing to do with a complicated reference book is to explore it (I am assuming you have access to a major university library, because otherwise you wouldn't have found it in the first place--if i knew which library you use I could be more specific. ) Sometimes, but not always, i read about it in some handbook, -- there's an article on it in WP. It emphasizes the old ed., and the new print--not the online. I did not read it, because I know the old print very well, & I can usually figure out the online--writing descriptions of them is part of my work. I knew it was online since I saw the ads. So look at the article. "DNB" has a redirect to it. The ODNB has a search either for people or for text words, The search works with last name alone, which is handy. The authors name for each article is at the bottom. Besides the subject of an article, other people without separate articles are included, and are indexed--you can use this as a source for minor figures also. --thats the point of saying who the article is about.

To make your use of ODNB source prominent, I added it as a section on Further Reading, showing what I meant about the reference.

Details for complicated references to early books: In copying a title for a modern book, do not use full capitals, or include trivial subtitles. In copying a 17th century book, you may use full title page transcription, as you have done. If so, be consistent, the 1st Cotta book probably has more capitals in the title. --I've changed them all to approximate correct form. (First the information for the original. Then the reprint , then the online link.) The punctuation matters, but that's for later. Two of your ISBNs are impossible--they are always 10 or 13 digits, no letters, you have copied some other number. the one from CHEL is complicated enough that I checked the format in Chicago Manual of Style. The section & p. numbers at the end of the part the author is responsible for. Author always goes first in humanities. Information for online version follows the information for the actual printed work--for this sort of article. Technology is different. Science is different, of course.

Im puzzled by your line about genetic distances between populations. there is an immense amount known. There is very good work on some human populations but the general studies are basic--remind me of your specialty?

As for other things, all you need to become a good humanities scholar is to concentrate your topics in a narrow area--instead of branching into a different field; after Cotta you should do all the other witch-finders. There's a good WP article on James VI, with a very brief section on his work in this field--expanding it would make a good separate article. I think there's a modern edition of his book. Use Bartleby etc. only if you cant get anything else, but cite Bartleby for those who cant get anything else. Personally I skip back & forth, but among the fields I know, tho on WP I will copyedit anything.DGG 19:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I seem sort of like an idiot savant in the Humanities, and maybe a bit more idiot than savant :) (I am laughing at this). I really stopped studying anything in the humanities after 2nd year of college (and that was all French). I stopped studying anything in English in the humanities in high school. My specialty is pulling signals out of noise and inventing new statistical methods for analyzing data (measurements, observations, etc). Stuff like MRIs, and EEGs and Seismic signals and Telescope data and communications data and climate data and radioactive decay data and so on. And one of my things I am very interested in is metrics; that is, definitions of distance in strange spaces. Of course, all of relativity (both special and general relativity) is basically about metrics. Quantum mechanics is deeply routed in metrics; Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is about metrics. Invariants are basically about metrics (things that stay the same length as other things change), so that includes constants of motion etc through Noethe's theorem. I am also interested in PDE (partial differential equations; that is all of EM and mechanical waves and GR and Quantum mechanics) and their relation to symmetry groups and differential geometry. So yes, there are maybe about 10 different genetic metrics, but no good review article really. And when I read them, they are clearly written by biologists who have no idea what statistics are at a professional level or how to analyze data or use exotic modern techniques. So, it is interesting to me. --Filll 19:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in metrics basically is what drew me to the pain scale article which I expanded a bit, and also dolorimeter and dol (both of which need much more). I havent managed to get much response from the medical types here or psychological types; I thought those those articles would be natural. There are a lot of articles on this on WP but poorly maintained, linked, etc.--Filll 19:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have to give you a huge thank you for all your attention and assistance. I probably seem really clueless and clumsy. However, that probably is not that far from the truth.--Filll 19:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the Barnstar. StudyAndBeWise 03:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I tried to archive my talk page before you gave me the barnstar, and it seems to be all screwed up. Is there a procedure documented on how to archive a talk page? Thanks. StudyAndBeWise 04:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.--Commander Keane 05:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing article

Kjárr. Take a look.--Filll 18:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Level_of_support_for_evolution#NPOV_Tag

Oh great. Another CreationistOrangemarlin 22:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: help request

Resolving a dispute is often a difficult thing in Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes has some guidance. I am not 100% sure about what this dispute is about, but if it is a widespread naming convention thing, you could try asking everyone to keep the current situation until consensus is formed, perhaps a Request for comment could help form that consensus. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions states: If you wish to propose a new naming convention, do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions, and also explain the proposal at Requests for comment and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages. Once a strong consensus has formed, it can be adopted as a naming convention and listed below.--Commander Keane 05:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh ok. Well if you think that a block of the editor is required, you could post a note to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, preferably with diff links to where the editor has been problematic. But note that the page does say "If your problem is a content issue and does not need the attention of people with administrator access, then please follow the steps in dispute resolution. These include: mediation, requests for comment, and as a last resort requests for arbitration.", so following that pathway (mediation to arbitration) may be the way to go.--Commander Keane 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lochmaben Stone

Thanks for the comment. I have made it a bit clearer hopefully. Regarding 'funny' vandalsim - someone decided to change Mr.Spratt to Mr.Pratt in one article I was writing.

Rosser1954

Hi!

Hi! Don't think I've come across you before?! Nice to see you spotted my passion :P Anyway, no, I haven't seen Little Miss Sunshine yet but I would like to :) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 04:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

speedy

sure, go ahead, it will be interesting to see if anyone objects--keep track-- DGG 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falsifiability

You left the text I was reworking for the creation-evolution article on my talk page. Coincidentally, I had just recently figured out the time magazine article was the reference regarding the other biologist. I think we need page numbers for the books, though. StudyAndBeWise 03:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled that out of our falsifiability draft. It probably does need page numbers though.--Filll 03:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil

May need your help over on Talk:Fossil. A storm's a brewin'. JPotter 04:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe this. We get peace in one article, and we have to go put out a fire in another. Do they know how nauseating it is to give the Fundies an open forum by letting them have articles like Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, but they want to throw their POV in well-written articles such as this one. Grrrrrrrr. Orangemarlin 18:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat disappointed that they are not interested in writing on the Dinosaur article. They want to just complain about the regular articles. Except for a few examples, very few want to write anything (Noah's Ark might be the exception).--Filll 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Hi Filll, I just wanted to thank you for your kind and supportive words of late. I get easily disappointed in myself and my words — often for a good reason :( — so it's wonderful to have someone say that I write well, especially from such a word-fu master as yourself. I'll get to those bees someday, I promise; forgive my delay. :( Willow 16:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth? You are doing a great job. I am dazzled by your math and physics and knitting articles. My articles are just hack jobs by comparison. I am afraid poor User:DGG is disappointed in me and my formatting of references and general lack of scholarship in the humanities. And my whimsical choice of topics for articles as well. I guess I do not seem very "serious" by comparison to most others here. I say WillowW, you are contributing in great ways and I am very impressed.--Filll 16:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey both of you. Stop it!!! You're both doing great jobs (although I don't know you Willow). Orangemarlin 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we or they

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Introduction_to_evolution&diff=104139473&oldid=104139076

Does your reversion reflect some 'pedia policy that I'm not aware of? If not then it seems to me that personal pronouns are not sufficiently encyclopaedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Carpenter (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Goodjob tracking the newsweek article down

Re: User_talk:StudyAndBeWise#Newsweek_quote.2C_as_copied_by_me_personally

Good job! I commented back on my talk page. StudyAndBeWise 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jesus as myth/additional

This should be in user space, my friend. DGG 03:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These rules are so complicated and I always seem to be breaking one rule or another. So I meant to put the material in Talk:Jesus as myth/additional but I screwed up and put it in Jesus as myth/additional by mistake. I feel stupid and I do not know how to get rid of the stuff from Jesus as myth/additional. Is it ok on Talk:Jesus as myth/additional? I hope so, at least I think it is, but I am never sure when I am doing something wrong on WP. So many rules, and the instructions are awful. It makes no sense and it is very very frustrating :( I have no idea what all the spaces are and what the rules are.

--Filll 04:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson the lawyer

“

This is very interesting to me. I will have to watch it. It also has given me another idea or two. Johnson is a retired lawyer. Now how would lawyers feel if the following were pushed by the public and by members of some religious sect:

All criminals that had not been seen committing a crime by the jury had to be released immediately. DNA evidence was ruled inadmissable, and confessions, and fingerprint evidence, and circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts were all thrown out. Unless the jury sees the crime for themselves, there is no proof it did not happen, so we have to just assume the opposite. Any criminal defendent is allowed to use miracles as part of his defense. So if my neighbor saw me killing the postman and burying him in the backyard, I can claim that he did not see me, he saw a vision, or that I was miraculously in Cleveland on the day of the murder, even though I have no evidence to support me being in Cleveland and in fact there are 30 pieces of evidence that I was home in Rochester instead. Questioning a "miracle" defense, or questioning the discarding of DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence will cause the judge, jury or lawyers to be condemned and cursed roundly, and told by the general public that they are damned and will burn in hell forever for questioning the word of God himself-They are in fact, defaming God almighty by questioning the miracle defense or introducing evidence from the past which no one saw. There were rumblings about changing the laws to require the introduction of the miracle defense, and the discarding of all past evidence. Anyone who disagrees with these principles is automatically suspect Lawyers and judges who disagree will be viewed as nonbelievers and atheists and blasphemers for doubting the word of God himself The expertise of lawyers and judges will be called into question since it is irrelevant-they are all atheists anyway, so who can trust them? I wonder if the debate was recast in this way, and brought home to Johnson and others in terms that they could understand, what people might think. Comments?--

”

Interesting arguments, taking some of the arguments of creationists to their logical extreme. StudyAndBeWise 04:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Level of support

Filll, I wasn't paying attention, and did not notice all the hard work you had put into the article. No hard feelings, I hope. I appreciate your kindness. I will try to find a reference too (I have many books from interested and dis-interested parties regarding the controversy)...I'll do a search through the indices. StudyAndBeWise 05:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly OT regarding Chick

Regarding [1]- Chick is very far outside the mainstream and is dislike by even many of the evangelicals in the US. JoshuaZ 15:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely true. But Kent Hovind is on record for stating that Jack Chick is right on target and that he agrees with his positions. My main point is that there are a range of extremists in the creationist and fundamentalist communities that do not agree with each other. And for one particular segment to claim that there is this huge group of creationists that agree with each other is clearly absolutely false. And also what I find irritating is that creationists and/or fundamentalists sometimes make the claim scientists or "evolutionists" are cursed, damned, atheists, evil, etc. However, when one scratches just a bit below the surface, one will find creationists and fundamentalists making the same charges against each other. And EACH claims that they and ONLY they have the right interpretation of the bible. The fact that so many exist and make this claim makes them even more silly looking and weakens their case (which already was vacuous) even more. It is not as if there were some clear alternate path to science and reason. Even in Christianity there is no clear alternate path. And even among creationists and fundamentalists there is no clear alternate path. Because it is all arbitrary nonsense. --Filll 16:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Trivia Article

Take a read and see if you can improve it. Wyoming (Schooner) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Orangemarlin (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for the changes. I actually wrote the article as a reference piece for the Noah's Ark article. It's now on Google!!!! There seems to be a lot of references, so I'm going to start reading them, and add them to the story. I found a picture here: [2]. But you're better at formatting than I am, and I'm not quite sure I understand the rules on images. What do you think? Orangemarlin 18:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good start and certainly notable. It is sort of amazing that schooners were still being made as late as 1909. It sort of shocks me, actually. I guess my notions of history are off a bit. I also am still pretty confused about images. There is a huge amount of material to know to be a good contributor on WP, and it is not that easy to learn it all.--Filll 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some "improvements. Check it out. Orangemarlin 18:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice.--Filll 19:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics/wip

Your command of English looks more than impressive to me! Having somebody fall into the criterion that you mention would be ideal: the problem is that non-physics scientists (and the like) probably don't care enough to bother to moderate this project. Perhaps you should mention to them that some people would like to define their subject as merely a sub-class of physics: maybe that will get them interested! Back to being serious though, did you put a request in the biology/chemisty main pages/portals etc? If not, then we could give that a try; and if so, then I guess we'll just have to make do with what we have. Krea 21:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely have two nibbles so far. I still have not approached all the people I know. I have one more in mind, but I was waiting to see what happened to the two nibbles first. If these 3 fall through, then I might expand the search to people I am less familiar with, or allow your friend MM to do it. I dont know him so I would just rely on you, but I am sure he is probably ok.--Filll 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. What about a general posting in another scientific article? We could give that a try if the three people you are talking about decline. Failing that, we will have to ask Michael. That won't be a bad solution, it's just that the discussions for the lead before you came in got on everyone's nerves a bit because we just kept going around in circles: it's only in this situation where I think that Michael's views could get in the way of his objectivity. This, however, is a situation that I don't think is likely to occur again; so, I don't expect there to be a problem really. Krea 17:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give the people I asked a chance to reply. I believe they are considering it. I might prod them. One candidate is out of town right now.--Filll 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That's fair enough: we'll just have to wait. Krea 18:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found something that might help

See Dennett citation in possible support of first sentence in Level_of_support_for_evolution article, with my reservations. StudyAndBeWise 18:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the following scenario

Now how would lawyers feel if the following were pushed by the public and by members of some small eccentric religious sect:

All criminals that had not been seen committing a crime by the jury had to be released immediately. DNA evidence was ruled inadmissable, and confessions, and fingerprint evidence, and circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts were all thrown out. Unless the jury sees the crime for themselves, there is no proof it did not happen, so we have to just assume the opposite.
Any criminal defendent is allowed to use miracles as part of his defense. So if my neighbor saw me killing the postman and burying him in the backyard, I can claim that he did not see me, he saw a vision, or that I was miraculously in Cleveland on the day of the murder, even though I have no evidence to support me being in Cleveland and in fact there are 30 pieces of evidence that I was home in Rochester instead.
Questioning a "miracle" defense, or questioning the discarding of DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence will cause the judge, jury or lawyers to be condemned and cursed roundly, and told by the general public that they are damned and will burn in hell forever for questioning the word of God himself-They are in fact, defaming God almighty by questioning the miracle defense or introducing evidence from the past which no one saw.
There were rumblings about changing the laws to require the introduction of the miracle defense, and the discarding of all past evidence. Anyone who disagrees with these principles is automatically suspect. Politicians opposed to the miracle defense and discarding of past evidence will be voted out of office. Judges opposed will be impeached and removed from the bench.
Lawyers and judges who disagree will be viewed as nonbelievers and atheists and blasphemers for doubting the word of God himself
The expertise of lawyers and judges will be called into question since it is irrelevant-they are all atheists anyway, so who can trust them?--Filll 21:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physics

I'm afraid I'm completely unqualified to help here. I have only school-level physics so much of the discussion would go over my head. Sorry. TimVickers 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read these supposed anti-evolution books

Hello Fill I know you are active against creationist nonsense. I was just reading an antievolution article citing these books:Richard Milton's-Shattering the Myths, David Stole-Darwinian Fairytales:Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, and other fairy tales of evolution, Scott Huse-The collapse of evolution. Have you read or heard of any of these books and do they have any, any credibility? Never heard of them myself so I wonder how mainstream they are and do just propagate antievolution myths. I know this is probably a stupid question.13:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not read any of those antievolution books. I am trying to recall if I have ever read any antievolution books, and I cannot think of any to be honest. What I have learned about the antievolutionists I have gained through defending myself from various attacks over the years, and reading talkorigins and other things on the internet. I have been slowly working on the History of creationism to make it a bit more complete by incorporating some of Ronald L. Numbers work ([3] for example) into the article. I also want to try to examine some of the most common antievolution arguments in greater depth (such as "evolution is only a theory"; I am doing a rewrite of Evolution as theory and fact to include scholarly information, historical precedents, etc). I have found several interesting things:

many creationists and evolution denialists have a very restricted and distorted view of what others believe: scientists, other Christians etc. They will often believe that their opinion is the majority opinion
there are many flavors of creationists, and the disagreements between these schools of creationism can be as vehement as those between creationists and scientists or evolution supporters etc. Often with about as little evidence to back up either school of creationism. It is like watching philosophers debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The present extreme Young Earth Creationist, literal 6 day creation, worldwide Noachian flood group has grown over the last 100 years or so, relatively speaking. Most of the famous creationists in history like William Jennings Bryan were actually far less radical, and believed in local floods, evolution of nonhuman species, etc.
When pushed just a little, most intelligent designers lapse right into creationist reasoning.
some "creationists" will claim that "all" creationists believe in microevolution and macroevolution and speciation through evolution. When I ask them how that is different than just believing in evolution, they have no answer, in the last few cases I have encountered. They just want to claim they are against evolution, even though they accept all of it.
A large fraction of even followers of the most radical conservative fundamentalists turn out in surveys to believe in evolution, and to not believe in biblical literalism.
Although many surveys of the US public seem to reveal strong support for creationism, more careful surveys with more carefully worded questions seems to show that this support is far weaker and softer than one might expect at first, with many fewer believing in biblical literalism. Also, official church positions are often at variance with parishoners opinions on suveys.
Many of the arguments against evolution that are most common are very old, dating back decades and decades. The same old arguments are used over and over, mindlessly. It is like a tradition.

--Filll 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a trip to the bookstore the next week and see if I can find and look over books. I am curious is this the same ole crap or does it have a vague resemblance to science. I think one of the authors is a Ph.D. but that in itself is not remarkable. I'll give you a heads up to what I can find. Thanks for the input! GetAgrippa 14:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not something I've read or cared to, but the ID bunch have been prominent in writing anti-evolution books, and of course there's Bomby the Bombardier beetle. Regarding public views, the targeted survey of Presbyterians I linked from the ID talk page found many who were inclined to agreeing with evolution, but opposed to common descent of humans with "lower animals". That matched my brief discussion with a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses. .. dave souza, talk 14:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to waste my money on buying, but I am a pretty quick read and will be able to tell if they are crap fairly quickly. A better gauge will be to see if any of the authors have published in peer reviewed journals. I noticed the comments on Catholicism and evolution above. Just this year a bishop came out against evolution but he was quickly reprimanded by the papacy and reminded that nothing in evolution is against catholic teachings and doctrine. There was a mention in Science of the incident. I can find it if it is useful for your purposes. GetAgrippa 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I have several places for that material. Thank you.--Filll 16:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the articles for your viewing. Hope it helps.GetAgrippa 17:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Science 12 August 2005: Vol. 309. no. 5737, pp. 996 - 997 DOI: 10.1126/science.309.5737.996a EVOLUTION: Vatican Astronomer Rebuts Cardinal's Attack on Darwinism Constance Holden* Is the Catholic Church rethinking its support for evolution? That's what Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, suggested last month in The New York Times when he asserted that the church does not accept "neo-Darwinism." His 7 July opinion piece disturbed many scientists, especially those in the United States already worried about a resurgence of creationism and its "scientific" cousin, intelligent design.

Last week, with no utterance forthcoming from the new pope, the Vatican's chief astronomer George Coyne took it upon himself to rebut Schönborn. Writing in the 5 August edition of The Tablet, Britain's Catholic weekly, the Jesuit priest accused the cardinal of "darken[ing] the already murky waters" of the evolution debate. He also pointed out that the International Theological Commission under the presidency of Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, issued a statement last year that saw no conflict between Darwin's ideas and the teachings of the Church.

In his Times piece "Finding Design in Nature," Schönborn last month dismissed as "vague and unimportant" the declaration of Pope John Paul II in 1996 that evolutionary theory is compatible with Catholic doctrine. "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true," the cardinal wrote, "but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense--an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection--is not."

It didn't take scientists long to react. On 13 July, three figures prominent in defending the teaching of evolution in the United States sent a letter to the new pope urging him to reaffirm his predecessor's statement. In these "difficult and contentious times," wrote physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, Francisco Ayala of the University of California, Irvine, and Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, "the Catholic Church [must] not build a new divide ... between scientific method and religious belief."

Biologist Peter Raven, head of the Missouri Botanical Garden and a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, thinks scientists may have "overreacted" to Cardinal Schönborn's comments. In fact, Raven says, there is no evidence that the statement was cleared with the pope. It reflects "a pretty serious misunderstanding of what evolution is and what the church had done before," he adds. Raven doubts that Benedict, who was an honorary member of the Pontifical Academy before he succeeded John Paul II, is about to switch course. "The church has had the same view on evolution for about 75 years," he says. But Krauss is not so optimistic. "Based on what I've read about this pope," he says, "it's not at all clear" where he stands. Cardinal Schönborn's spokesperson Erich Laetenberger did not make the matter any clearer: "The cardinal only expresses what the church thinks about the issue," he told Science. The academy's president, physicist Nicola Cabibbo of the University of Rome, has promised to look into the issue, says academy member and astronomer Vera Rubin of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. In an interview in the 18 July issue of the National Catholic Reporter, Cabibbo indicated that he endorses the views held by Pope John Paul II on evolution. Although some scientists think that "evolutionism" rules out God, Cabibbo declared, "this extension of Darwin's theory is not part of what has been discovered by science." Coyne makes reference to this debate in his recent essay, noting that "there appears to exist a nagging fear in the church" that the universe as defined by science "escapes God's dominion."

Meanwhile, defenders of evolution are still lamenting a comment last week by a vacationing President George W. Bush, in response to a reporter's question, suggesting that public schools should teach students about intelligent design (Science, 5 August, p. 861). Groups representing biologists, astronomers, and science teachers, among others, have shot off letters to the White House expressing their dismay.

Science 8 September 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5792, p. 1373 DOI: 10.1126/science.313.5792.1373b Don't look for a big change any time soon in the Catholic Church's views on evolution. Although supporters of evolution had feared that the Pope would embrace so-called intelligent design, Pope Benedict XVI gave no sign at a gathering last week as to how he thought the topic should be taught. The pope said little during the meeting, which included his former theology Ph.D. students and a small group of experts near Rome. Peter Schuster, a chemist at the University of Vienna and president of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, attended the meeting and gave a lecture on evolutionary theory. "The pope … listened to my talk very carefully and asked very good questions at the end," he says. And the Church's most outspoken proponent of intelligent design, Cardinal Schönborn, seemed to distance himself from the theory.

Talk:Evolution/Gene flow

Want to help out a bit? Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at it and I might offer a few suggestions. I am no expert however--Filll 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, all the better: Can make sure that a complicated subject is described simply. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir

Did you get my message regarding the citation that might help on the level of support for evolution article? StudyAndBeWise 07:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I am not quite certain what to do. I have done some searching and I guess I will do more. --Filll 07:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look this seems tricky, so I've suggested that we Reconsider the first sentence – see what you think. ...dave souza, talk 10:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]